Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-15
Mr. HIGHER COURTS.
.,;,psd from Sirth Page.

8 Ione by the defendant they
q ssss Eas o nj" The jury was charged
8oalea. 9I could SCOUT II they oelieve they
tsb t3ey Ssd csrnal knowledge by the
8 5.isndsss, me me eirl, provided she was not
Il roB:snI " rasrs of age. The proof clear.
i ss5sf s t,l:d csrnal knowledge, hence the
q rasg'IE;sS" upon which acquit-
4 :fp0taesE, rest is eliminated.
d Coa.s a IN no part Of the charge told
4 &c lal! .r ri should be acquitted of as
+. est s Inc or aggravated assault, If
i s1E 10 L"f not under ten years of age,
De gu , mn to the acts of defendant.
vi saSrn,ission in the charge the iudg-
fJE tls ooa-Tarsed sud the cause remand
D. hut TeiIerry vs. the State; appeal
I'pTo .--ison county. The evidence in
son na+ tsirly and fully raises the issue
ID: @ License. There is not a particle
t;'.5,.1rUca fairly raising the issue that
ds'ig.onntth sd /, rfeited the right Of self
5is2aaIby seeking and provoking the
5ia5I liz =! and Il was erroneous and pre-
G..atiyt'o the defendantto submit that
9ilsIsa ~ II tbe Jury. Ininstructing the Jury
aas l" he he Isw of apparent danger
t?'1 charge makes the right
1s ..ltdefense hinge upon the
a.,.s to whether or not the defendant
i':' q Nv bgliaved at the time he acted,
s9. .so v.s in danger Of losing his life.
y. ~ iSe. Of honest belief on his part is
y, '. ,s there several times in the
?ls. .-a unon seIf-defense, and while be-
t3.i !sSb;ict TO the objections that it is
"a tl,o prominent to the minds OF the
g besides net correct statement OF
Ih The correct rule is, that Il it
1s. in" appeared to the defendant,
la '5 nc standpoint, from the circum-
- us &C. # the case, that the denger ex-
$50 $50 end he acted under the reasonable
. sSS t5,t it did exist, he was justified in
,,.,.1ding sgainst it to the same extent
~ Tnder me same rules permitted in
-. the danger had been real. The por.
~ =, n the charge which re-
~, 10 threats made By the
I a against the defend
1T is disconnected from that
-. .,,,ion relating to self-deiense. Held;
g,,or II formed part Of the law Of the
Emo cf self-deielse, and should have
sson given in Immediate connection there
v IN The law Of selt-defense when in
,.Esd bv the proof, should be given to
ne iurv plainly, directly, coDnectedly,
,,5 sfIrmstiVely snd IN such manner as 10
now rs applicability TO the facts In evil
ssrcs While il was competent for the
5sisDdsnt if he could, that the decease
nd no probable cause to accuse him of
ne CRIME Of arson, before and at the time
II ,be homicide, snd that deceased did
mi in tsct believe said charge to be true,
mi that the cause of deceased's enmity
mT,rds him was en- entirely different mat
tsr thsn the arson, still We do not think
ae court erred in refusing to per
min the witness Campbell to an
;Eer the question propounded to him,
IS to whether in an investigation he had
n,ae about the srson, he had found any
Evidence tending to connect the defend
snt with it. Objection was made to re-
marks Of counsel for the state in his clos
ing argument and was overruled. Held ::
ETOr. The remarks objected to were
wholly foreign to he case on trial with
Oh! any support whatever in the evidence,
sni we're calculated to operate upon the
2llds Of the jury periodically to the de-
hrdsnt. Because of the errors in the
charge, and the improper remarks to the
jly msde By counsel for the state, above
Mentioned, the Judgment is reversed and
the Cause remsnded. Wilson, j.
S. Vestcle ct al. vs.. the State; ap-
peal from kaufman. This is q writ of
eHOr prosecuted from a judgment on q
5al bond given by plaintiff in error for
bis appearance IS witness at the trial Of
Willis Adams. Two errors are assigned.
Fist the court erred in rendering jndg-
nent by default on the bail bond, because
there is variance in the date Of the bond
Fcited in the scire faciss, and the bond
igalf; and second, the Judgment is erron-
eOusr because bond on 8 Judgment nj 81,
Inst Is, void in law, in not requiring good
cause to be shown why the principal of
j. 5. Veatcle did not appear
instead Of defendant. Held:
lie assignments are not well
aEen. 1t is now too late for the plaintiff
n error to inquire into and raise ques-
IONS as to discrepancies on the citation
snd preliminary matters arising before
l3iogment. The judgment is therefore
snfmed. Wilson, J.
w. N. Williams VS.. the State; appeal
nom Hunt county. The only question
alseo In this case is as to the suficiency
u Ine evidence. Upon an examination
u NE transcript of the record we find
1st Inc evidence is amply sufficient to
S y. the conviction for simple assault.
tasie was no error found in the record
a1u me Judgment is therefore affirmed.